Cunliffe's constituent Liu?

[Oscar]

Hanging onto the properties doesn't really compound the loss for the banks - when they end up getting a higher sale price to the original and potentially new business via loans. This has been happening for years, not just for houses either - for a lot of the farms too.

What I am saying is - it is not in the interests of most businesses to follow or try and adhere to the Market Principles. The Principles are contrary to most businesses goals - make money, usually as much as possible, and for the big multinationals such as banks - usually by any means. Most businesses would prefer not to work under such principles - as if they had to they would be struggling. And for that reason the Principles are just as airy fairy as socialism.

That's interesting, as I have worked for a bank and a couple of finance companies and bad loans were considered very bad form, bad for business and likely to get you called into the bosses office. Make a habit of it and it was usually reflected in the compensation of whomever signed the loan off. If what you are saying was true, Banks would encourage their staff to be reckless lenders when the opposite is true - bad debtors look very bad on the balance sheet and make shareholders grumpy.

As for disposing of the property, the loan document and various consumer protection acts are very specific about the disposal of foreclosed property - you can't just "hang on to it".
And as for a "higher sale price", you do realise the bank only gets to keep the loan, outstanding interest and actual incurred costs, don't you? They don't just assume ownership - anything left over after the loan is settled goes to the client.

However it is a axiomatic on KB that those with the least experience and knowledge of something will comment on it the most - Messers D-Marge and Mashman being good examples.

[Oscar]

Ofcourse the banks don't act like predators....




http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/rebu...estpac-tellers

Socialist lies eh..

Not socialist lies, but three years old.
One instance of bad behaviour by a bank does not prove your (unrelated) theories on the free market.

[mada]

That's interesting, as I have worked for a bank and a couple of finance companies and bad loans were considered very bad form, bad for business and likely to get you called into the bosses office. Make a habit of it and it was usually reflected in the compensation of whomever signed the loan off. If what you are saying was true, Banks would encourage their staff to be reckless lenders when the opposite is true - bad debtors look very bad on the balance sheet and make shareholders grumpy.

As for disposing of the property, the loan document and various consumer protection acts are very specific about the disposal of foreclosed property - you can't just "hang on to it".
And as for a "higher sale price", you do realise the bank only gets to keep the loan, outstanding interest and actual incurred costs, don't you? They don't just assume ownership - anything left over after the loan is settled goes to the client.

However it is a axiomatic on KB that those with the least experience and knowledge of something will comment on it the most - Messers D-Marge and Mashman being good examples.

Ofcourse the bank does not gain DIRECTLY from a mortgagee sale. Their gain is from the increase in land/house prices - whereby the next owner is most likely to take out an even higher loan with them. Are you saying that the banks have not profited by the bucket load from the booming property market and increased mortgages required to by a house or to buy a farm???

The Banks don't call in their mortgages and then hang on to them, rather they let the farmers off from fully paying for sometime so they do not legally have to foreclose and sell - preventing a flooding of the market.

Sorry, I trust my dairy farming National voting gun toting cousin more than you even if his comments were over 2 years ago and based on what was happening in Canterbury.

Its not the only area that has farmers complaining of banks lending practices etc.

Obviously this below shows there are shitloads of socialists up north:

Aggressive lending practices by the major banks have forced 30 Northland farmers off their land in the past 18 months through mortgagee sales, according to a Dargaville-based lobby group.

Farmers of New Zealand, an alternative to Federated Farmers, said a meeting planned for March would raise the possibility of aggrieved farmers taking a class action against the banks.

John Waugh, a barrister and former banking executive, will advise farmers on their rights, said Farmers of NZ's operations director, Bill Guest.

He expected the meeting to take place soon after the Northland Agricultural Field Days at Dargaville from February 27 to March 1.

Guest said 25 to 30 farmers had walked off their land over the past 18 months and he expected the number to reach 40.

Drought in parts of Northland and Kaipara had made matters worse for many farmers, he said.


In many cases farmer debt loads had been unrealistically high and the banks' risk analysis procedures had been "seriously lacking".

"Farmers of NZ believes that they were set up to fail, and some people have lost their shirts."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11201726

Look at that, clearly outdated being some four months old.

[mada]

Good financial risk management eh...

New Zealand's dairy sector debt nearly tripled over the past decade to $30.5 billion last year and some farmers will have difficulty servicing their loans in the year ahead, despite the prospect of a higher milk price.
The Ministry for Primary Industries, in its latest Situation and Outlook report, said the debt was spread unevenly among farmers, with about half held by just 10 per cent of dairy farmers. Given the rapid growth in dairying over the past decade, the ministry said it was not surprising that its level of debt had also increased.

The dairy sector's demand for debt financing over the past decade was due to a number of factors, one of which was the requirement to fund a large number of capital-intensive dairy conversions. "While there is a strong correlation between the increase in debt and dairying land during the six-year period ending June 2009 - the period of strongest debt growth - the 15.5 per cent annual average growth in debt during this period was only associated with a 2 per cent increase in dairy land per annum," the ministry said.


A significant proportion of the debt accumulated during this period could be attributed to PRICE INFLATION FOR LAND, which averaged 12 per cent a year.

Because demand for such land exceeded available supply, much of the debt was reflected in higher land prices.

"This has left a significant number of dairy farmers vulnerable to a fall in the milk price or a decline in land prices," the ministry said.


Dairy NZ estimates that nearly 40 per cent of North Island dairy farmers will not be able to meet their working expenses and interest costs this season because of the effects of the drought. An expected higher milk payout this season would assist farmers to service their debt, the ministry said. "Unfortunately, some of the most heavily indebted dairy farmers may have difficulty in servicing their debt even with the higher payout," it said.

Looking ahead, debt would remain a risk to the financial viability of many dairy farmers, the ministry said.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10890952

[Brian d marge]

That's pretty funny.
I have spent a good portion of my life working for banks and finance companies, so I actually have an idea of how real life works.
You may go on getting your ideas from comic books...

No you dont Mashman has more integrity in his little finger than you have had in your entire life ,

you have NO idea of the banksters game plan and try to justify your suroundings by using the input from local media

you have NO idea how other cultures function let alone your own

Are you really SAYING the banks / current system is , sort off , doing ok?


you REALLY do not understand what it is to be ,here and now

i find that sad

I hope you wake up before your meeting with the man upstairs ,,,, i really do

sorry for the disjointed diatribe but you are so lacking in knowledge and my keyboard can only take so much abuse , I am forced to comprimise


stephen

I challenge you to put up ONE bit of evidence to support

[mashman]

No you dont Mashman has more integrity in his little finger than you have had in your entire life ,

Are you really SAYING the banks / current system is , sort off , doing ok?

awwww hugs.

No, he's saying that it's the fault of the people that the current system is a failure. He has been bought.

Cannot spread for you again... which is a shame coz I rofl'd at your compromise.

[Oscar]

Ofcourse the bank does not gain DIRECTLY from a mortgagee sale. Their gain is from the increase in land/house prices - whereby the next owner is most likely to take out an even higher loan with them. Are you saying that the banks have not profited by the bucket load from the booming property market and increased mortgages required to by a house or to buy a farm???

The Banks don't call in their mortgages and then hang on to them, rather they let the farmers off from fully paying for sometime so they do not legally have to foreclose and sell - preventing a flooding of the market.

Sorry, I trust my dairy farming National voting gun toting cousin more than you even if his comments were over 2 years ago and based on what was happening in Canterbury.

Its not the only area that has farmers complaining of banks lending practices etc.

Obviously this below shows there are shitloads of socialists up north:



http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11201726

Look at that, clearly outdated being some four months old.

So this is all a conspiracy to force up property prices?

You’re saying that the banks will lose money on their core business to force up property prices? Land in which they have no stake in order to stoke up the market so that they can lend more money?

Also your example is very short on details and contradicts your theory. If it is true, and farmers have loans which require 100% of income to service, then the borrower is mad and the bank guilty of reckless lending. This more likely means that the farmers income has fallen, and with it the value of the farm (toward negative equity) - this means the banks reckless lending driven the market DOWN, not up. It is also not uncommon for lenders to allow borrowers to retain their property if the consequences of a foreclosure would put them in a worse position – negative equity where the lender loses not just interest but principle. This would seem to be counter to your argument that the banks try to drive the market up in these circumstances.

[Oscar]

No you dont Mashman has more integrity in his little finger than you have had in your entire life ,

you have NO idea of the banksters game plan and try to justify your suroundings by using the input from local media

you have NO idea how other cultures function let alone your own

Are you really SAYING the banks / current system is , sort off , doing ok?


you REALLY do not understand what it is to be ,here and now

i find that sad

I hope you wake up before your meeting with the man upstairs ,,,, i really do

sorry for the disjointed diatribe but you are so lacking in knowledge and my keyboard can only take so much abuse , I am forced to comprimise


stephen

I challenge you to put up ONE bit of evidence to support

So now you're saying that there's an international conspiracy of banks? Sorry, Banksters...
Not only that, but you're asking me to put up some evidence to gainsay a theory which you have failed to prove?
And that if I don't, GOD will punish me?
You really are a fruitbag.

[Oscar]

No you dont Mashman has more integrity in his little finger than you have had in your entire life ,

Since you have never met me in person, and I doubt you've met him, you're saying that you can judge and compare integrity over the internet?
Do you realise how pathetic and stupid that is?

[mashman]

Since you have never met me in person, and I doubt you've met him, you're saying that you can judge and compare integrity over the internet?
Do you realise how pathetic and stupid that is?

Oh Ironing.

[Oscar]

I thought I'd reinforce my right wing bastard credentials by posting a picture of Huka Lodge, where I was on Saturday.
They wouldn't let me go fishing using an unemployed person's baby as bait, though.
Soft pricks...

[mada]

So this is all a conspiracy to force up property prices?

You’re saying that the banks will lose money on their core business to force up property prices? Land in which they have no stake in order to stoke up the market so that they can lend more money?

Also your example is very short on details and contradicts your theory. If it is true, and farmers have loans which require 100% of income to service, then the borrower is mad and the bank guilty of reckless lending. This more likely means that the farmers income has fallen, and with it the value of the farm (toward negative equity) - this means the banks reckless lending driven the market DOWN, not up. It is also not uncommon for lenders to allow borrowers to retain their property if the consequences of a foreclosure would put them in a worse position – negative equity where the lender loses not just interest but principle. This would seem to be counter to your argument that the banks try to drive the market up in these circumstances.

Believe what you want, many know what is going on. Those who gain the most from increasing house and land prices are the banks. Not society.

I'm sure you probably even believe there has been no conspiracy by Banks to avoid paying billions in tax in NZ :face palm:

New Zealand's big four Australian-owned banks and the Inland Revenue Department have announced a settlement of their disputes over structured finance deals that involves the banks paying the government a gross NZ$2.2 billion. This represents 80% of the amounts owed by the banks and is the largest commercial settlement with the IRD in its history. (Updated with comment from ANZ, ASB, BNZ, Westpac and the IRD)

The settlement follows years of legal fights and two high court rulings in favour of the IRD. The banks will not pay penalties and the full details of the settlement are confidential, although they are paying 80% of the total tax owed plus interest. The amount was enough to boost New Zealand's current account into a surplus in the September quarter for the first time in almost 21 years.

The Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Robert Russell, and the Solicitor-General, David Collins, said they were pleased the long-running tax disputes involving four major banks had been settled.

[mada]

I thought I'd reinforce my right wing bastard credentials by posting a picture of Huka Lodge, where I was on Saturday.
They wouldn't let me go fishing using an unemployed person's baby as bait, though.
Soft pricks...

Huka's lodge is pretty boring - this just shows your age rather than anything else.

A picture at "Hookers Lodge" and the "fishing" there would reinforce your credentials and bring out the envy of us leftwing posters.

[Oscar]

Believe what you want, many know what is going on. Those who gain the most from increasing house and land prices are the banks. Not society.

I'm sure you probably even believe there has been no conspiracy by Banks to avoid paying billions in tax in NZ :face palm:

Um, it's the conspiracy can't be that good if they got caught, eh?
The fact is that businesses push the line all the time when it comes to tax.
As there were no penalties involved, you could hardly say that this was criminal, rather a dispute about interpretation of the regulations .

As far as land / property prices are concerned, you have yet to prove that any bank is actively trying to create a bubble.
Like many here, you talk a good game.

[Oscar]

Huka's lodge is pretty boring - this just shows your age rather than anything else.

A picture at "Hookers Lodge" and the "fishing" there would reinforce your credentials and bring out the envy of us leftwing posters.

I'm not sure what age has to do with it.
For the record, I found the place to be nice, but hardly worth the money they were asking.
I'm not sure that 10k a night can be justified on the basis that the Queen slept there or that the fishing is good.
I went to a place in Malaysia last year where the facilities and service was as good for a fraction of the price.